You are here:

Models for Building Knowledge in a Technology-Rich Setting: Teacher Education
ARTICLE

, , Acadia University

CJLT Volume 35, Number 1, ISSN 1499-6677 e-ISSN 1499-6677 Publisher: Canadian Network for Innovation in Education

Full Text

Abstract

Technology offers promising opportunities for creating new types of classroom learning environments. This paper describes three technology models used by teacher education interns: electronic portfolios, negotiative concept mapping, cognote-supported electronic discussions. As implemented in the current study, these models invoke graduated attributes of knowledge building and as such serve as a useful continuum of examples of the potential of technology to assist in promoting progressive knowledge construction. A description of the models is followed by a discussion of the relationship of these classrooms to Knowledge-Building principles. Résumé La technologie offre des possibilités prometteuses pour la création de nouveaux types d’environnements d’apprentissage en classe. Le présent article décrit trois modèles technologiques utilisés par les stagiaires en enseignement : portfolios électroniques, cartographie conceptuelle de négociation, discussions électroniques avec codage. Tels que mis en œuvre dans le cadre de la présente étude, ces modèles font appel à des attributs hiérarchiques de coélaboration des connaissances et constituent donc en eux-mêmes un continuum utile d’exemples illustrant comment la technologie peut aider à encourager l’élaboration progressive des connaissances. Une description des modèles est suivie d’une discussion portant sur la relation de ces classes avec les principes de coélaboration des connaissances.

Citation

MacKinnon, G., Aylward, M. & Aylward, M. (2009). Models for Building Knowledge in a Technology-Rich Setting: Teacher Education. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology / La revue canadienne de l’apprentissage et de la technologie, 35(1),. Canadian Network for Innovation in Education. Retrieved August 10, 2024 from .

References

View References & Citations Map
  1. ACME (1996). Acadia Courseware Management Environment [Computer software]. Wolfville, NS: Acadia University.
  2. Angelo, T., & Cross, K. (1993). Classroom assessment techniques (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
  3. Aylward, L., & MacKinnon, L. (1999). Exploring the use of electronic discussion group coding with pre-service secondary teachers. Journal of Information Technology for Teacher Education, 8(3), 335-348.
  4. Brooks, J.G., & Brooks, M.G. (1993). The case for constructivist classrooms. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
  5. Davey, B., & McBride, S. (1986). Effects of question-generation training on reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 78(4) 256-62.
  6. Knight, J.E. (1990). Coding journal entries. Journal of Reading, 34(1), 42-46.
  7. Maddux, C., & Johnson, D.L. (2006). Type II uses of technology in education: Projects, case study, and software applications. Binghamton, NY: Haworth Press Inc.
  8. MacKinnon, G.. (2000). The dilemma of evaluating electronic discussion groups. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 33(2), 125-131.
  9. MacKinnon, G. (2006). Contentious issues in science education: Building critical thinking patterns through two-dimensional concept mapping. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 15(4), 433-445.
  10. MacKinnon, G., & Aylward, L. (1999). Six steps to improving the quality of your electronic discussion groups. Journal of Instruction Delivery Systems, 13(4), 17-19.
  11. MacKinnon, G., & Aylward, L. (2000). Coding electronic discussion groups. International Journal of Educational Telecommunications, 6(1), 53-61.
  12. MacKinnon, G., Aylward, L., & Bellefontaine, J. (2006). Electronic discussion: A case study of the range of applications in a laptop university. Computers in the Schools, 23(2), 52-71.
  13. MacKinnon, G., & Bellefontaine, J. (2000). CD-ROM technology and instruction delivery: A teacher education approach. Journal of Instruction Delivery Systems, 14(4), 17-23.
  14. MacKinnon, G., & Keppell. (2005). Concept mapping: A unique means for negotiating meaning in professional studies. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 14(3), 291-315.
  15. MacKinnon, G., Pelletier, J., & Brown, M. (2002). Coding electronic discussion to promote critical thinking: Across-curricular teacher education approach. In D. Willis, J. Price, & N. Davis (Eds.), Proceedings of the Society for Information Technology& Teacher Education, (pp. 1372-1374). Charlottesville, VA: AACE.
  16. MacKinnon, G., & Williams, P. (2006). Models for integrating technology in higher education: The physics of sound. Journal of College Science Teaching, 35(8), 22-25.
  17. McTighe, J., & Lyman, F.T. (1988). Cueing thinking in the classroom: The promise of theory-embedded tools. (7), 18-24.
  18. Novak, J.D., & Gowin, D.B. (1984). Learning how to learn.,New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
  19. Posner, G.J., Strike, K.A., Hewson, P.W., & Gertzog, W.A. (1982). Accommodation of a scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change. Science Education, 66(2), 221-227.
  20. Scardamalia, M. (2002). Collective cognitive responsibility for the advancement of knowledge. In B. Smith (Ed.), Liberal Education in a Knowledge Society (pp. 67-98). Open Court.
  21. Stringer, E.T. (1996). Action research: A handbook for practitioners. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  22. Tobin, K., & Tippins, D. (1993). Constructivism as referent for teaching and learning. In K. Tobin (Ed.), The practice of constructivism in science education (pp. 3-21). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  23. Witherspoon, T. (2005, July 19). Clay animation made easy. Available at http://education.wichita.edu/claymation/

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. Signed in users can suggest corrections to these mistakes.

Suggest Corrections to References

Also Read